The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has ruled in a controversial case involving Parker T. Williamson, chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor-in-chief of the Presbyterian Layman, ruling partly in favor of Western North Carolina presbytery and partly for Williamson.
The judicial commission, in an April 4 decision, sustained Williamson’s complaint that the presbytery’s policy governing validated ministries — involving work other than being a pastor of a church — was inadequate and should have been more detailed. But the commission disagreed with his contention that the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic had made a mistake in its handing of the case and that the synod commission should have ruled that the presbytery acted improperly against him because the Lay Committee had issued a paper called “A Declaration of Conscience.” That paper contended that the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s unrestricted mission budget is not worth supporting and urged congregations to consider withholding funds from the denomination.
For the specific ruling, access https://www.pcusa.org/gapjc/decisions/pjc21707.pdf.
Williamson argued that his endorsement of the Declaration of Conscience “is constitutionally protected speech,” but “this argument is not persuasive,” the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission wrote in its ruling.
It noted that the synod commission found that the “presbytery’s action was not retaliatory and was not punishment,” and that it was “not based on any opinions he (Williamson) may have expressed or any respectful dissent he may have offered.” The General Assembly judicial commission ruled that Williamson had not presented sufficient evidence “to overcome the presumption of correctness given to determinations on factual issues by lower governing bodies.”
And, regarding Williamson’s argument about protected speech, the ruling stated that the Presbyterian system “recognized the right of the corporate community to place limits on the exercise of freedom of conscience by its officers. The (church’s) constitution is that self-limitation which the people themselves place upon their own rights in order that they may be able to live and work together in love and unity. Because Williamson may exercise his freedom of conscience only within the bounds prescribed by the covenant community, presbytery could properly consider the Declaration of Conscience as one of many factors in reaching its decision.”
The dispute got started in 2003, when the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry decided to no longer consider Williamson’s work with the Layman to be a validated ministry of the presbytery — criticizing the Layman for producing slanted, unfair reporting and saying: “It is time for the Lay Committee to end its destructive tactics and unending attacks upon women and men who are seeking to do God’s work through the offices of the PC(USA).”
The presbytery voted 150-106 in January 2004 that Williamson’s work with the Layman should not be considered a validated ministry, and that, after 32 years serving in the presbytery, he should be made a member-at-large — a decision that Williamson immediately denounced as an “oily compromise.”
In March 2004, Williamson filed a complaint with the synod arguing there had been irregularities in how his case was handled. The synod judicial commission ruled in September 2004 that the presbytery indeed had made procedural mistakes and failed to provide Williamson with “adequate due process and fundamental fairness.”
That ruling set aside the presbytery’s decision to make Williamson a member-at-large and instructed the presbytery and Williamson “to jointly formulate a presbytery-wide process of reconciliation concerning this issue.”
Both the presbytery and Williamson appealed parts of that ruling to the General Assembly judicial commission.
On the points raised by the presbytery, the General Assembly commission agreed with one and disagreed with one. It ruled that the synod commission had erred in telling the presbytery it couldn’t review the status of Williamson’s validated ministry for a year — saying the presbytery has a constitutional responsibility to conduct such a review and that the synod commission’s order improperly prevents the presbytery from doing so.
But it disagreed with the presbytery’s contention that the synod commission didn’t have the authority to order a presbytery-wide process of reconciliation with Williamson.
Williamson had made five allegations of error by the synod commission, but the General Assembly commission upheld only one — agreeing with his argument the presbytery’s policy for validating ministries was insufficient. The commission ruled that the presbytery should have had written criteria for determining which specialized ministries would be considered validated ministries of the presbytery.
It did not sustain Williamson’s allegations of error on other points — among them, that the presbytery was wrong in considering the Layman’s history of publication in previous years; that it didn’t read and consider all the material Williamson provided; and there wasn’t enough evidence presented to decide not to validate his ministry.
